dolorem ipsum

In Ontario (Attorney General) v. Restoule, the Court once again reminds us that the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples is sui generis (¶70).

Lest we forget our Latin, this is what sui generis means in 2024:

• The Charter applies to indigenous governments that derive their existence, authority, and legitimacy from indigenous legal orders…but may not apply to school boards created by provincial statute (Vuntut Gwichin and York Region District School Board).
• Findings of mixed fact and law made in connection with a constitutional question are reviewed on the standard of correctness…unless the constitutional question involves the duty to consult (Société des Casinos du Québec and Haida Nation).
• Damages may be an appropriate remedy for legislation that breaches Charter rights…but breaches of treaty rights must be “egregious and long-standing” to warrant more than declaratory relief (Canada (Attorney General) v. Power and Restoule).
• The honour of the Crown is a fundamental constitutional principle and doctrine implicated by the assertion of sovereignty over indigenous peoples…but the Justices still don’t agree whether this principle is a “component of the Constitution” or how “Aboriginal and treaty rights” fit within Canada’s constitutional structure (Restoule and Rowe J. (dissenting) at ¶264 in Power).